Shiner

This is a strange little film, now about 10 years old. I suppose technically it could be classed as a gay-genre film, but is not exclusively "gay" in subject, I got it in a video closeout and was surprised to find it very interesting. It is rather rough around the edges....not very well edited, i think.....the work of a young director with very good ideas but perhaps not a whole lot of technique.at the time. The actors are unknowns, relatively inexperienced as well, I believe, but surprisingly good. The subject is so "in your face" that i am not surprised to find it practically lost in audience appeal (admitted by the director himself in the commentary). But what I like about it is the absolute honesty ....it does reflect a real psychology, I think.. More than that, , there are moments of real tenderness which took me so by surprise that I had to run the film back to see if I had seen it correctly.. Alas, I have not found much else that has been done by these actors, nor the director. I believe there is still a website up and running, though, and it may very well have a "cult" following. It deserves a watch. .

Okay, this film is not for everybody. It encompasses three relationships: one straight, one gay (at least on one side), and one buddy relationship which may or may not be gay. And yes, it does include some gorgeous men, some full frontal male nudity, and deals with various aspects of what might be called consensual violence within intimate relationships. So if any of these subjects disturb you too much, you may not want to see this film.Some of the criticisms in other reviews may be somewhat justified, but these issues do not detract significantly from the film, at least for me. Also, I believe that some of the jarring editing and camera work is intentional, and feeds the tone of the film.What really blew me away about Shiner (besides the boxer's body) was the way the characters approach sado-masochism, dominance/submission, and fetishes. It's easy to believe that none of them know anything about the world of BDSM, but are just discovering aspects of themselves and defining their own unique relationships, rather than trying to fit into a BDSM "mould". This results in a film which is refreshing, enlightening, and very, very special.If you're interested in the subject-matter of this movie, or even just open-minded, you should give this movie a chance. You're in for truly unique experience.

Realistic was troubled

One of the very worst gay movies I have ever seen.You know it will get worse when the credits are out of focus,the acting non-existant,no story,an affair between a man and a woman crops up on occassions-why?It failed to mean anything to me. Dreadful cinematography on numerous occassions incl over and under exposure and out of focus scenes.This film is so devoid of everything that should make a good film.The underground car park scene and some of the bedrom scenes between the male and female,have a dreadful red glow as if someone turned on a huge red light-resulting in the very worst in cinematography I have ever seen.This is a film which has nothing going for it.

A voyeuristic journey through some slightly interrelated mostly gay romances in which S&M are a factor. Some more intense than others. I found it interesting in spite of terrible picture and sound quality and a few never explained holes in the story. Moderate skin but nothing really graphic.

Oh this movie...freaky, violent, sexy. It was captivating yet disturbing! Couldn't stop thinking about it for days. Had to call friends to suggest that they see this movie. WOW-just wow!

Probably the lamest waste of my money. Wait... the lamest waste of time making, production money, etc... Except for a couple of cute guys in the film, this movie was an absolute just waste. The production value is worse than those movies I made in Junior High. Is there a way to do NO STARS? Like maybe negative stars?

Have you ever been so hungry that even a bag of stale chips will do? "Shiner" is much like the perverse satisfaction one gets when biting into the first chip. It satisfies the hunger, and then you wonder what ever possessed you to eat it in the first place.Apart from the overtly bad acting and confusing direction (watch the interview with the director in the special features, you realise he is a first timer) the story is quite interesting within itself. There are two stories within one, with the sub plot being the most interesting.The first story is about a defeated, self-loathing boxer who is stalked by a rather drab and unsettling mentally unstable character. The second seeks to explore male sexuality, within a genre that is more than just "gay" stereotyping. Two 'straight' friends explore their sexual pathology by inflicting pain on each other, almost as if this makes the sexual ambiguity and experience they have with each other acceptable. After all one cannot be 'gay' if he is a man that likes fighting.The director explains in his interview that "Shiner" evolved around a short story. More specifically a unsuccessful boxer, who struggles to find his own sense of identity. Within that struggle are his own personal demons of depression and self-loathing, which seem perversely elevated with the realisation that he is being stalked. He cannot understand why another person would find him so interesting as to debase himself in such a way. He confronts the stalker initially in a manner which is both cruel and demeaning, but ends up entertaining the notion that perhaps there may be something good in this infatuation. One mental illness competing with another's mental illness, may make for some interesting psychology within a short story.Quite frankly in my opinion that part of the movie should have stayed a short story, as the sub plot was for me far more interesting. If it had been the central theme, with some stronger acting, this movie could have been a great deal better than the end result.Male masculinity and the demands of normative society, make for a strange, convoluted exploration of alternative sexuality. It specifically attempts to avoid the 'gay' label, making the friendship between two males something other than those labels with which we are accustomed. Gay, straight or bi-sexual are insufficient terms (read labels) to describe this sexual nuance, and as such it evolves into a reality of its own. The irony is that it is both destructive and pathological (as most pathologies are), but this does not diminish from the strange intimacy and satisfaction both character seem to get from the painful veneer they create for themselves.This aspect of the movie could have been exceptional if the director had taken some time to explore the subject a little more. It could and should have been a very different movie from "Shiner". With stronger direction and better characterization, the script would have evolved within itself. My own brief research into this subject has revealed a monolith of diverse sexuality. From sub cultures that explore CMNM (clothed males nude males) with no sexual contact amongst themselves, to male on male frotage (with penetration forbidden as a decent into homosexuality), and last but not least extreme masculinity amongst men as a means of acceptable sexual intimacy amongst themselves. The subject matter is profoundly interesting.Unfortunately stale chips remain stale chips. "Shiner" does a horrible job of exploring this dark subject matter. It merely plays in a genre, which itself demands greater direction and respect. This should not be the titillation it becomes, but rather a far more serious exploration of a evolving sexual practise.

Have you ever been so hungry that even a bag of stale chips will do? "Shiner" is much like the perverse satisfaction one gets when biting into the first chip. It satisfies the hunger, and then you wonder what ever possessed you to eat it in the first place.Apart from the overtly bad acting and confusing direction (watch the interview with the director in the special features, you realise he is a first timer) the story is quite interesting within itself. There are two stories within one, with the sub plot being the most interesting.The first story is about a defeated, self-loathing boxer who is stalked by a rather drab and unsettling mentally unstable character. The second seeks to explore male sexuality, within a genre that is more than just "gay" stereotyping. Two 'straight' friends explore their sexual pathology by inflicting pain on each other, almost as if this makes the sexual ambiguity and experience they have with each other acceptable. After all one cannot be 'gay' if he is a man that likes fighting.The director explains in his interview that "Shiner" evolved around a short story. More specifically a unsuccessful boxer, who struggles to find his own sense of identity. Within that struggle are his own personal demons of depression and self-loathing, which seem perversely elevated with the realisation that he is being stalked. He cannot understand why another person would find him so interesting as to debase himself in such a way. He confronts the stalker initially in a manner which is both cruel and demeaning, but ends up entertaining the notion that perhaps there may be something good in this infatuation. One mental illness competing with another's mental illness, may make for some interesting psychology within a short story.Quite frankly in my opinion that part of the movie should have stayed a short story, as the sub plot was for me far more interesting. If it had been the central theme, with some stronger acting, this movie could have been a great deal better than the end result.Male masculinity and the demands of normative society, make for a strange, convoluted exploration of alternative sexuality. It specifically attempts to avoid the 'gay' label, making the friendship between two males something other than those labels with which we are accustomed. Gay, straight or bi-sexual are insufficient terms (read labels) to describe this sexual nuance, and as such it evolves into a reality of its own. The irony is that it is both destructive and pathological (as most pathologies are), but this does not diminish from the strange intimacy and satisfaction both character seem to get from the painful veneer they create for themselves.This aspect of the movie could have been exceptional if the director had taken some time to explore the subject a little more. It could and should have been a very different movie from "Shiner". With stronger direction and better characterization, the script would have evolved within itself. My own brief research into this subject has revealed a monolith of diverse sexuality. From sub cultures that explore CMNM (clothed males nude males) with no sexual contact amongst themselves, to male on male frotage (with penetration forbidden as a decent into homosexuality), and last but not least extreme masculinity amongst men as a means of acceptable sexual intimacy amongst themselves. The subject matter is profoundly interesting.Unfortunately stale chips remain stale chips. "Shiner" does a horrible job of exploring this dark subject matter. It merely plays in a genre, which itself demands greater direction and respect. This should not be the titillation it becomes, but rather a far more serious exploration of a evolving sexual practise.

If you have seen and enjoyed Fight Club and enjoy receiving and or administering pain then this low budget unconvincingly acted and directed film may titillate you.The movie is shot with a range of over indulged angles and sound effects. Personally I did not care for Fight Club and the violent sub culture it was selling so, Shiner did not impress me either.The blurb on the DVD cover to sell this movie (with my added comment/s in brackets)is as follows:"Shocking (not) original and daring (not). Christian Carlson's explosive (explosive is somewhat wishful thinking) debut Shiner explores (very poorly) the dark crevices of desire and passion (I saw no convincing desire or passion although there is a crevice or two) The film revolves around three (boring) couples whose intimate, intense and occasionally abusive relationships provide frameworks for love (well, thats a matter of opinion). Tony & Danny are two logtime buddies(if you say so) whose kinks are to beat up "fags" (actualy one fag) and then each other(well,in an AM DRAM way),which then ignites their sexual desire (about as sexy and desirable as wet fish!) Tony's roommate Elaine (so that is who she is),on the rebound, beds Reg (who?)and when an argument turns physically violent (about as violent as brushing your teeth with soap), it takes their intimacy to a new level (of boredom for the viewer).And then there is Bob, a timid (Bob takes timid to a new level) gay boy (boy is stretching it a bit) and gym attendant (Gym? I see no Gym, I thought he was the parking lot attendant)who creepily stalks (we are led to believe) the hunky boxer Tim (so he's supposed to be a boxer is he)who, in turn, begins to stalk his stalker. Raw, boldly sexual (Yeah right, in your dreams), violent (we've done violent) and uncomfortable (which reminds me I must get another cushion for the couch) perceptive (wish I had been more perceptive before buying this movie)in it's handling of human desires and gripping viewing( I have been more gripped after eating a curry)." end.If you intend to buy this movie view the interview,in the extras section, with the director,Christian Carlson, which may be helpful before actually viewing the movie. Christian Carlson states that if this film is not successful he may not get the opportunity to make another feature... goodbye Christian.